1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against order dated 27.05.2015 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.925 of 2014, whereby the Appeal filed by Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1 was partly allowed.

2.       The Case of the Complainant is that his Tata Truck LPT-2518 bearing registration No.RJ-02-GA-8564 was insured with Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 vide Policy No.1501722334002359, valid from 26.06.2012 to 25.06.2013. On 2.3.2013 the truck met with an accident in Sherghati, District Gaya, Bihar. On 07.03.2013, the truck was towed by a crane, incurring charges of Rs.25,000/-. The Complainant promptly informed the insurance company about the accident, who appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor asked the Complainant to take the vehicle to the service centre of Respondent No.2. Therefore, on 11.3.2013, the truck was taken to Respondent No.2 workshop for repairs, where it was determined that the chassis and cabin were irreparably damaged, necessitating replacement. It was alleged that the body repair of the truck was not done by the authorized service centre but unauthorized centre outside the authorized service centre. The Complainant incurred total amount of Rs.15 lakhs for repair of the truck. The Complainant filed insured claim with Opposite Party No.1/Insurance Company with a request to make final survey of the truck and make payment of the claim amount. Opposite Party No.1 neither made final survey nor paid the claim amount to the Complainant despite repeated requests, due to which the truck remained at the workshop of Respondent No.2 for 15 days. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer:-

“1. Pass an order, directing the Respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation pertaining to damaged truck in question along with interest @ 20% thereon from the date of filing of the Complaint till its payment.

2. Pass an order directing the Respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards hardships and mental agony caused to the Complainant by the Respondent No.1.

3. Pass an order directing the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- towards expenses occurred while visiting office of Respondent No.1 and writing letters etc. time and again to it and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of profit when truck was lying with Respondent No.2 for 15 days, i.e. total sum of Rs.70,000/- be ordered to be paid to the Complainant by the Respondents.

4. Pass an order directing the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs.21,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of litigation and fees for counsel.

5. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

3.       The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party No.2 by filing the written statement. Opposite Parties No.1 & 3/Reliance General Insurance Company failed to file written statement within the stipulated period. The District Forum, therefore, closed the right of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 to file written statement. Opposite Party No.2 stated that the Complaint was not maintainable qua them as no relief was sought against them.

4.       The District Forum, after hearing the Parties and perusing the record, vide order dated 16.08.2008, partly allowed the Complaint with the following direction:-

“Admitting the case of the Complainant, it is ordered that Respondent Nos.1 and 3 is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.13,60,483/- (Rupees Thirteen Lac Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Three Only) to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the present Complaint, i.e. 12.7.2013 till its realization.

Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are also liable to pay compensation to the Complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complaint/case qua Respondent No.2 is rejected.”

5.        Aggrieved by the impugned order of District Forum dated 03.07.2014, Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 filed First Appeal No.925 of 2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 27.05.2014, modified the order of the District Forum and directed them to pay the Complainant Rs.3,66,276/- along with interest @ 15% per annum interest from the date of the accident, i.e., 2.3.2013 with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation cost.

6.       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.05.2015, Petitioner/Complainant has filed the Present Revision Petition with the following prayer: -

“(a) Set aside the final Impugned Judgement and Order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench No.1 in First Appeal No. 925 of 2014; and

(b) Award costs of litigation throughout as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper; and/or

(c) Pass such other and/or further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

7.       As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 13 days in filing the Revision Petition. The Petitioner has not filed the application for condonation of delay. Even the Respondents have not raised the issue of delay. Considering the nature of dispute and the period of delay, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 13 days.  

8.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant and Respondents No.1 & 3/Reliance General Insurance Company and carefully perused the record. As none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2, they are proceeded ex-parte.

9.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate the case of the Complainant and reduced the awarded amount from Rs.13,60,483 to Rs.3,66,276/- without any basis. The Respondents failed to file the Survey Report before the District Forum. They, however, filed the same before the State Commission only at the time of final arguments. Even the copy of the Survey Report was not supplied to the Petitioner. The State Commission accepted the Survey Report in toto and on that basis reduced the awarded amount. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Complainant incurred Rs.13,60,483/- towards repair of the vehicle. Learned Counsel submitted that there is a concurrent finding regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

10.     Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 3/Insurance Company submitted that the State Commission reduced the awarded amount from Rs.13,60,483 to Rs.3,66,276/- on the basis of the assessment made by the Surveyor in the Survey Report. The Petitioner is not entitled for any further amount. The District Forum awarded amount of Rs.13,60,483/- on the basis of false statement of the Complainant that the Surveyor had assessed the amount of Rs.13,60,483/-. The finding of the District Forum was contrary to the material available on record. In fact, the Surveyor assessed the amount at Rs.3,66,276/- on the basis of the documents supplied by the Complainant. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Respondents No.1 & 3 showed their bona fide and in compliance of the impugned order dated 27.05.2015, deposited the decretal amount alongwith interest, totaling Rs.6,14,705/-, vide cheque No.431748 dated 04.09.2015, with the District Forum in the execution proceedings. The Revision Petition has no merit and liable to be dismissed.

11.     Facts of the case are that the truck of the Complainant was insured with Respondent/Opposite Party No.1, vide Policy No.1501722334002359, valid from 26.06.2012 to 25.06.2013. On 2.3.2013 the truck met with an accident in Sherghati, District Gaya, Bihar. The truck was taken to Respondent No.2 for repairs. After repair of the truck, the Complainant submitted bills before the Insurance Company for reimbursement. As Opposite Party No.1 neither made final survey nor paid the claim amount to the Complainant, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

12.     As far as deficiency in service is concerned, both the Fora below have returned concurrent findings. The only dispute relates to quantum of loss. It is admitted that the Opposite Parties failed to file the Survey Report before the District Forum. The same was, however, filed with the State Commission at the time of final arguments. The State Commission relying on the Survey Report, reduced the awarded amount from Rs.13,60,483 to Rs.3,66,276/-. It is admitted case of the Parties that the Survey Report was not filed before the District Forum and it was filed before the State Commission. It is not understood how the District Forum arrived at the figure of Rs.13,60,483/-. In this regard, the District Forum observed as follows: -

“In the survey report prepared by surveyor appointed by the Respondent, it has been stated that damage caused to the truck in question is worth Rs.13,60,483/-. Thus, Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.13,60,483/- along with interest @ 9% thereon.”

          The District Forum observed that the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.13,60,483/-. The Respondents have filed on record the Survey Report dated 03.03.2013 wherein the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.3,66,276/-. On the basis of the Survey Report, the State Commission reduced the awarded amount from Rs.13,60,483 to Rs.3,66,276/-.

13.     In view of the foregoing discussion, the Opposite Party is liable for payment of loss as per the assessment made by the Surveyor. The report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence otherwise. The Complainant failed to produce any evidence contrary to the assessment made by the Surveyor. We see no reason to disagree with the order of the State Commission. There is no legal infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned Order. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.